1,714 words
Peter Jackson, a director for the Lord of the Rings trilogy, came upon many difficulties as he tried to turn Tolkien’s epic narrative into an equally epic film. The third book, and film, Return of the King, became the most difficult tale of the three to put into motion. The many problems that Jackson faced included time limits, proportions, costume designs, landscapes, certain limitations that could only be solved through technology, as well as not having sufficient details of certain aspects within the narrative. However, being able to convey the actual narrative of the Return of the King into a film, was a far greater challenge than merely deciding what to cut out or add into the film. While Peter Jackson had created many differences and similarities between the film and narrative of Return of the King, he still managed to create a highly successful work of art. It is Jackson’s ability to overcome the problems from page to screen that continues to make Tolkien’s work a classic masterpiece.
Being able to successfully turn a narrative into a film has often been disputed by scholars. Tom Shippey is one of the most successful folk lore scholars of our time, and his world view about turning novels into film is a very simple one. Shippey plainly believes that it is impossible to justly turn a narrative, especially Tolkien’s, into a film. He also strongly thinks that fairy tales always end with a happy ending, but he knew that Tolkien did not always see it this way. Folklore and fantasy are a type of release from the hectic reality that mankind has to be forced to deal with. Shippey often states that faerie and folklore tend to be geared towards children, since children do not often understand the difference between fact and fiction, and often ask adults what is particularly true. He thinks that the extreme detail is the only way one can be pulled into this form of fantasy, and for a brief moment in time, actually believe is true since one notices the sense of being pulled into and involved within the story. Once these images of fantasy are taken out of context and placed into a real life setting, the magic of that secondary world is usually taken away, since the detail is missing to draw the audience into the storyline. Overall, Shippey’s first impression of the Lord of the Rings films was probably instant dismissal of a decent transition from page to screen. However, Jackson was able to create an even balance between a narrative’s audience, and a film’s audience. The ability to include so much of Tolkien’s information into three, four hour films, is a feat that Peter Jackson and other Lord of the Rings enthusiasts, were the only people up for this immense challenge.
One of the first challenges occurred through the writing of Return of the King’s script. While many of them do create differences between the narrative and the film, it’s imperative to recognize that most of the differences were due to the fact that the writers couldn’t fit any further information into the previous film, The Two Towers. One of the main problems was the inability for Peter Jackson to fit the entire Isengard sequence at the end of the second film. He had come to the conclusion that the battle at Helm’s Deep made the second film long enough. Another essential component of the narrative included the discovery of the palantir. The writers needed to find a way to incorporate the discovery, and managed to do so by having several key characters return to Isengard; Gandalf, Theoden, and Pippin, being several of the individuals of the group.
Not only did Jackson have to worry about where to separate and rearrange the storyline for the Return of the King, but they also had to make sure that each battle sequence had to be different than the rest. Since the battle sequences were mainly live action, Jackson had to make sure that they also looked realistic, and could appear plausible to the audience. Through narrative, Tolkien used his intense detail to draw the readers into the narrative, having them believe for a short while that they were part of something real, and that what they were reading and experiencing was possible. Jackson had to be able to portray this realism into his film. Shippey had stated in his article about faerie, “Belief depended on the way in which stories were presented to me, by older people, or by the authors, or on the inherent tone and quality of the tale. But at no time can I remember that the enjoyment of a story was dependent on belief that such things could happen, or had happened, in ‘real life’.” The issue that Jackson had to overcome was that he knew that the audience saw normal, mortal, human beings up on the screen. He had to be able to come up with something that forced the audience to believe that what they were watching was real and possible. To be able to feel like you’re part of the storyline, not only the movie, is what will make something from page to screen successful.
Another scene that should have been at the end of The Two Towers was the scene with Frodo being chased by Shelob and being wrapped up in Shelob’s cocoon web. While this scene was intended to follow the battle of Helm’s Deep and Isengard, Jackson ultimately thought that there would be too much action and drama within the second film if he had ended it with two major battles, as well as ending on the film on such a low sense of dread with Frodo being potentially killed off by Shelob, and not knowing Frodo’s outcome until the Return of the King. Shippey had stated that, “A real taste for fairy-stories was wakened by philology on the threshold of manhood, and quickened to full life by war”. As well as, “Most good ‘fairy-stories’ are about the adventures of men in the Perilous Realm or upon its shadowy marches”. Shippey understands the importance of evil, inspired by evil, for those authors that fall into the hobby of writing fantastical tales. The body and context of these narratives, such as Return of the King, needs to contain enough drama of the hardships of men. Involving men allows the audience to relate easier to the narrative. However, Shippey’s description of these perils as adventures must have had some impact on Jackson as he wrote the script for Return of the King. Adventure has the connotation of something good prevailing from the end of a story. Jackson must have been influenced by Shippey’s worldview since Jackson could not end the Two Towers with such anxiety. This is why he introduced the beginning of Return of the King with a great deal of darkness and conflict.
The final scene that appeared within Return of the King, instead of a previous movie, was Aragorn receiving the sword of Elendil. The directors of the film decided this was one of the most climactic parts of the narrative. While they needed to introduce the sword into the film, they knew that they couldn’t have it given to Aragorn too early into the trilogy. This way, once Aragorn finally received the sword, a new hope could then be realized, heightening the final climax of the film. Jackson wanted the storyline to appear hopeless for some length of time. By taking the sword out of the picture so early on, it gave the spectators more anticipation to the resolution. The directors had eventually decided that Elrond would have to be the one to ride and deliver the sword to Aragorn.
While watching the commentary, of the directors and producers, from The Return of the King DVD, Peter Jackson reiterated time and time again that Tolkien had not given enough detail within several important passages. While on the other hand, Tolkien had “…[done] things in his writing that must, one would think, have driven the director and the scriptwriters of the movies quite distracted,” according to Tom Shippey. It was important for the writers to throw out the meaningless banter and to focus on the less detailed, but highly significant aspects of the storyline. One of the first instances that Jackson mentions is how he had to differentiate between the stature of a steward and a king; with reference to Lord Denethor. A king is someone who is usually spoiled by riches, has a pure bloodline of royalty, and takes pride in one’s kingdom. A steward is not usually associated with a royal bloodline, and is merely appointed as one who supervises and manages the affairs of the city. Not only does Jackson have to strictly distinguish between these two ranks of power, but he also has to take into consideration Denethor’s overall personality. With the loss of Boromir, Denethor becomes sullen and thinks that the grand life that should have been rightly his is now at a total loss. He loses all hope and takes no pride in the city that continually strove for his approval. It was imperative for Jackson to not only establish this character, but also to develop the hope and pride with King Theoden that Denethor clearly lacked. These two characters needed to be properly portrayed as optimism and pessimism, light and dark; not in a sense of good and evil.
Overall, it’s plain to see that the multitude of individuals that gave their hearts and souls into the production of The Return of the King, created a great success. Through the many difficulties of bringing the words, or lack there of, out of an epic narrative and up onto the big screen, Peter Jackson and his fellow associates created a piece of art that even Tolkien himself would be proud of. However, even to this very day, the directors and producers have their own likes and dislikes within the third film that they had created. Even Tom Shippey himself found advantages and disadvantages to both the literary and theatrical works. Nonetheless, having the patience to incorporate the immense information from the third novel into a successful four hour film is a feat that many individuals aren’t up to the task of completing.
Works Cited
Shippey, Tom. “On Fairy-stories.”
Lord of the Rings: Return of the King. Dir. Peter Jackson. 2003.
Lauren Brych? September 24, 2008, at 12:12 PM
